I just came across a new chain that’s distributing incentives to pull TVL, and in the comments section, a bunch of old users are complaining about “mine, claim, and sell”—it’s a bit funny, but also pretty real. Actually, the same thing happens on the chain gaming side. When many projects first open their pools, the reward design looks pretty good—people think they can rely on in-game circulation to sustain things. Then the mercenaries/farmers show up, the rewards get dumped, and inflation basically wipes out the pool. I followed a project before and thought the model was pretty reasonable: rewards were halved, and there was also a burn mechanism. But players mined it and just withdrew it—none of it was actually consumed. The pool’s liquidity collapsed directly. I thought adjusting the parameters could save it, but then the old users were already cursing: “Better to have run earlier.” Bottom line: the hardest part of on-chain economics is making sure rewards and consumption are truly matched; otherwise, no matter how good the story is, it can’t withstand sell pressure. So for me now, when I see this kind of thing, I first check the emission rate and the real consumption scenarios—otherwise it’s just a different way to lose money.